The rank of diluted random graphs - arXivRandom graphs, adjacency matrix, random matrices, local...

arX

iv:0

907.

4244

v4 [

mat

h.PR

] 8

Apr

201

1

The Annals of Probability

2011, Vol. 39, No. 3, 1097–1121DOI: 10.1214/10-AOP567c© Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2011

THE RANK OF DILUTED RANDOM GRAPHS

By Charles Bordenave, Marc Lelarge and Justin Salez

Universite Toulouse III, INRIA and INRIA

We investigate the rank of the adjacency matrix of large dilutedrandom graphs: for a sequence of graphs (Gn)n≥0 converging locallyto a Galton–Watson tree T (GWT), we provide an explicit formulafor the asymptotic multiplicity of the eigenvalue 0 in terms of the de-gree generating function ϕ∗ of T . In the first part, we show that theadjacency operator associated with T is always self-adjoint; we ana-lyze the associated spectral measure at the root and characterize thedistribution of its atomic mass at 0. In the second part, we establisha sufficient condition on ϕ∗ for the expectation of this atomic massto be precisely the normalized limit of the dimension of the kernelof the adjacency matrices of (Gn)n≥0. Our proofs borrow ideas fromanalysis of algorithms, functional analysis, random matrix theory andstatistical physics.

1. Introduction. In this paper we investigate asymptotical spectral prop-erties of the adjacency matrix of large random graphs. To motivate our work,let us briefly mention its implications in the special case of Erdos–Renyi ran-dom graphs. Let Gn = (Vn,En) be an Erdos–Renyi graph with connectivityc > 0 on the vertex set Vn = {1, . . . , n}. In other words, we let each pair ofdistinct vertices ij belong to the edge-set En with probability c/n, indepen-dently of the other pairs. The adjacency matrix An of Gn is the n×n sym-metric matrix defined by (An)ij = 1((ij) ∈ En). Let λ1(An)≥ · · · ≥ λn(An)denote the eigenvalues of An (with multiplicities) and

µn =1

n

n∑

i=1

δλi(An)

denote the spectral measure of An. Our main concern will be the rank of An

rank(An) = n− dimker(An) = n− nµn({0}).

Received September 2009; revised March 2010.AMS 2000 subject classifications. Primary 05C80, 15A52; secondary 47A10.Key words and phrases. Random graphs, adjacency matrix, random matrices, local

weak convergence, Karp and Sipser algorithm.

This is an electronic reprint of the original article published by theInstitute of Mathematical Statistics in The Annals of Probability,2011, Vol. 39, No. 3, 1097–1121. This reprint differs from the original inpagination and typographic detail.

1

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.4244v4

http://www.imstat.org/aop/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/10-AOP567

http://www.imstat.org

http://www.ams.org/msc/

http://www.imstat.org

http://www.imstat.org/aop/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/10-AOP567

2 C. BORDENAVE, M. LELARGE AND J. SALEZ

Theorem 1. (i) There exists a deterministic symmetric measure µ suchthat, almost surely, for the weak convergence of probability measures,

limn→∞

µn = µ.

(ii) Let 0< q < 1 be the smallest solution to q = exp(−c exp(−cq)). Thenalmost surely,

limn→∞

µn({0}) = µ({0}) = q + e−cq + cqe−cq − 1.

In other words, almost surely,

limn→∞

rank(An)

n= 2− q − e−cq − cqe−cq.(1)

Apart from an improvement of the convergence, part (i) is not new;the convergence in probability was first rigorously proved by Khorunzhy,Shcherbina and Vengerovsky [16] (for an alternative proof, see [10] [notethat it only implies lim supnµn({0})≤ µ({0})]).

In the sparse case, that is, when the connectivity c grows with n likea logn, the rank of An has been studied by Costello, Tao and Vu [13] andCostello and Vu [12]. Their results imply that for a > 1, with high probabilitydimker(An) = 0 while for 0 < a < 1, dimker(An) is of order of magnituden1−a. Our theorem answers one of their open questions in [12].

The formula (1) already appeared in a remarkable paper by Karp andSipser [15] as the asymptotic size of the number of vertices left unmatchedby a maximum matching of Gn. To be more precise, the function G 7→dimker(G) is easily checked to be invariant under “leaf removal,” thatis, if G′ is the graph obtained from G by deleting a leaf and its uniqueneighbor, then dimker(G′) = dimker(G). Karp and Sipser [15] study theeffect of iterating this leaf removal on the random graph Gn until onlyisolated vertices and a “core” with minimum degree at least 2 remain.They show that the asymptotic number of isolated vertices is approximately(2 − q − e−cq − cqe−cq)n as n→ ∞, and that the size of the core is o(n)when c ≤ e. Thus, (1) follows by additivity of G 7→ dimker(G) on disjointcomponents, as observed by Bauer and Golinelli [6]. However for c > e, thesize of the core is not negligible and the same argument only leads to thefollowing inequality:

lim infn→∞

dimker(An)

n≥ q + e−cq + cqe−cq − 1.

Bauer and Golinelli [6] conjecture that this lower bound should be the actuallimit for all c, which is equivalent to saying that asymptotically the dimen-sion of the kernel of the core is zero. The proof of this conjecture followsfrom our work (see Section 4).

RANK OF RANDOM GRAPHS 3

Our results are not restricted to Erdos–Renyi graphs. They will in facthold for any sequence (Gn)n≥1 of random graphs converging locally to arooted Galton–Watson tree (GWT), provided the latter satisfies a certaindegree condition. The precise definition of local convergence is recalled inSection 3. It was introduced by Benjamini and Schramm [7] and Aldous andSteele [3]. A rooted GWT (see [2]) is characterized by its degree distributionF∗, which can be any probability measure with finite mean on N: the rootØ has offspring distribution F∗ and all other genitors have offspring distri-bution F , where for all k ≥ 1, F (k − 1) = kF∗(k)/

∑ℓ ℓF∗(ℓ). In the case of

Erdos–Renyi graphs with connectivity c, the limiting tree is simply a GWTwith degree distribution F∗ =Poisson(c).

The adjacency operator A of a GWT [T = (V,E)] is a densely definedsymmetric linear operator on the Hilbert space ℓ2(V ) defined for i, j in V by

〈Aei, ej〉= 1(ij ∈E),

where for any i ∈ V , ei denotes the base function j ∈ V 7→ 1(j= i). As we willshow, if F∗ has a finite second moment, then A has almost surely a uniqueself-adjoint extension, which we also denote by A. Consequently, for anyunitary vector ψ ∈Dom(A), the spectral theorem guarantees the existenceand uniqueness of a probability measure µψ on R, called the spectral measureassociated with ψ, such that for any k ≥ 0,

〈Akψ,ψ〉=

∫

R

xk dµψ(x).

In particular, we may consider the spectral measure µT associated with thevector eØ, where Ø is the root of the rooted tree T . Our first main result isan explicit formula for EµT ({0}), the expected mass at zero of the spectralmeasure at the root Ø of a rooted GWT T .

Theorem 2. Let T be a GWT whose degree distribution F∗ has a fi-nite second moment, and let ϕ∗ be the generating function of F∗. Then,EµT ({0}) =maxx∈[0,1]M(x), where

M(x) = ϕ′∗(1)xx+ ϕ∗(1− x) + ϕ∗(1− x)− 1 with x= ϕ′

∗(1− x)/ϕ′∗(1).

In the special case of regular trees, the measure µT can be explicitelycomputed and turns out to be absolutely continuous, so µT ({0}) = 0. Incontrast, one may construct GWTs with arbitrary large minimum degreeand such that EµT ({0}) > 0. The following example is taken form [9] and

is due to Picollelli and Molloy: set d≥ 3 and take ϕ∗(x) =d

1+dxd + 1

1+dxd3 .

Figure 1 gives a plot of M for the case d= 3, showing that EµT ({0})> 0 in

this case.


Fig. 1. Plot of M for ϕ∗(x) =d

1+dxd + 1

1+dxd

3

, with d= 3.

When F∗ is a Poisson distribution with mean c, the corresponding quan-tity maxx∈[0,1]M(x) is precisely (1), and it already appeared in Zdeborovaand Mezard [19], equation (38), as a “cavity method” prediction for thelimiting fraction of unmatched vertices in a maximum matching.

To the best of our knowledge, the formula was unknown for generalGWTs. However, Bauer and Gollineli [5] have computed explicitly the asymp-totic rank of the uniform spanning tree on the complete graph of size n. AlsoBhamidi, Evans and Sen [8] have recently analyzed the convergence of thespectrum of the adjacency matrix of growing random trees.

Our second main result (Theorem 13) states that for any sequence ofrandom graphs (Gn)n≥0 converging locally in distribution to a GWT, wehave limn n

−1 rank(An) = 1− EµT ({0}), provided the first local extremumof the above function x 7→M(x) is a global maximum on [0,1]. We haveleft open the case where the global maximum of M is not the first localmaximum (see Section 4).

Our detailed analysis of the atomic mass at 0 of the limiting spectralmeasure µ remains only a small achievement for the global understandingof this measure. For example, for Erdos–Renyi graphs, the atomic part of µis dense in R, and nothing is known on the mass of atoms apart 0. There isalso a conjecture about the absolutely continuous part µac of the measure µ:we say that µ has extended states (resp., no extended state) at E ∈R if thepartition function x 7→ µac(−∞, x) is differentiable at x=E and its deriva-tive is positive (resp., null). This notion was introduced in mathematical


physics in the context of spectra of random Schrodinger operators; a recenttreatment can be found in Aizenman, Sims and Warzel [1]. For Erdos–Renyigraphs, Bauer and Gollineli have conjectured that µ has no extended stateat E = 0 when 0 < c ≤ e, and has extended states at E = 0 when c > e.More generally, one may wonder whether µac = 0 when 0 < c ≤ e. Finally,the existence of a singular continuous part in µ is apparently unknown.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, we an-alyze the adjacency operator of a GWT. In Section 2.3, we study µT ({0})and prove Theorem 2. In Section 3, we prove finally the convergence of thespectrum of finite graphs and the convergence of the rank. The proof ofTheorem 1 is given in the Appendix.

2. Locally finite graphs and their adjacency operators. A rooted graphis the pair formed by a graph G with a distinguished vertex Ø ∈ V , called theroot. There is a canonical way to define a distance on V : for each u, v ∈ V ,the (graph)-distance is the minimal length of a path from u to v, if any, and∞ otherwise. For a rooted graph G with root Ø and t an integer, we willdenote by (G)t the rooted subgraph spanned by the vertices at distance atmost t from the root. In all this section, we consider a locally finite rootedgraph G= (V,E) with root denoted by Ø.

2.1. Adjacency operator. Consider the Hilbert space

ℓ2(V ) =

{ψ :V →C,

∑

i∈V

|ψ(i)|2 <∞

}

with inner product 〈ψ,φ〉=∑

i∈V

ψ(i)φ(i).

Denote by H0 ⊆ ℓ2(V ) the dense subspace of finitely supported functions,and by (ei)i∈V the canonical orthonormal basis of ℓ2(V ), that is, ei is thecoordinate function j ∈ V 7→ 1(i= j). By definition, the adjacency operatorA of G is the densely-defined linear operator over ℓ2(V ) whose domain isH0 and whose action on the basis vector ei, i ∈ V , is

Aei =∑

j : ij∈E

ej.

Note that Aei ∈ ℓ2(V ) since G is locally finite. Moreover, for all i, j ∈ V ,

〈Aei, ej〉= 1{ij ∈E}= 〈Aej, ei〉.

Therefore, the operator A is symmetric, and we may now ask about theself-adjointness of its closure, which is again denoted by A. The answer ofcourse depends upon G, but here is a simple sufficient condition that shouldsuit all our needs in the present paper.


We define the boundary of a subset S ⊆ V as ∂S = {ij ∈ E : i ∈ S, j /∈ S},and the boundary degree ∆(∂S) as the maximum number of boundary edgesthat are adjacent to the same vertex.

Proposition 3. For A to be self-adjoint, it is enough that V admits anexhausting sequence of finite subsets with bounded boundary degree:

(A) There exist finite subsets S1, S2, . . .⊆ V such that⋃

n

Sn = V and supn

∆(∂Sn)<∞.

Proof. Denote by A∗ the adjoint of A. By the basic criterion for self-adjointness (see, e.g., Reed and Simon [18], Theorem VIII.3), it is enough toshow that 0 is the only vector ψ ∈Dom(A∗) satisfying A∗ψ =±iψ. Considersuch a ψ (let us treat, say, the +i case), and define the following flow alongthe oriented edges of G:

(i→ j) =ℑ(ψ(i)ψ(j)) =−(j→ i),

for all ij∈E. The amount of flow created at vertex i ∈ V is then

∑

j : ij∈E

(i→ j) =ℑ

(ψ(i)

∑

j : ij∈E

ψ(j)

)=ℑ〈A(ψ(i)ei), ψ〉

=ℑ〈ψ(i)ei,A∗ψ〉= |ψ(i)|2.

Now, by anti-symmetry of the flow, the total amount of flow created insideany finite subset S ⊆ V must equal the total amount of flow escaping throughthe boundary ∂S

∑

i∈S

|ψ(i)|2 =∑

ij∈∂S

(i→ j).

Therefore, using (i → j) ≤ |ψ(i)||ψ(j)| and twice the Cauchy–Schwarz in-equality, we find

∑

i∈S

|ψ(i)|2 ≤

( ∑

i∈∂S−

|ψ(i)|2∑

i∈∂S−

( ∑

j∈Sc∩Ni

|ψ(j)|

)2)1/2

≤∆(∂S)

( ∑

i∈∂S−

|ψ(i)|2∑

j∈∂S+

|ψ(j)|2)1/2

,

where we have written Ni for the set of neighbors of i, ∂S− and ∂S+ forthe sets of vertices ∂S ∩ S and ∂S ∩ Sc, respectively. Finally, take S = Sn,


and let n→∞: the exhaustivity⋃nSn = V ensures that the left-hand side

tends to∑

i∈V |ψ(i)|2 = ‖ψ‖2 and also that

∑

i∈∂S−n

|ψ(i)|2−−−→n→∞

0 and∑

j∈∂S+n

|ψ(j)|2−−−→n→∞

0.

Since supn∆(∂Sn) <∞, the right-hand side vanishes, and we obtain thedesired ‖ψ‖= 0. �

2.2. Spectral measure. We now assume that the adjacency operator A isself-adjoint. The spectral theorem then guarantees the validity of the Borelfunctional calculus on A: any measurable function f :R→ C may now berigorously applied to the operator A just as one would do with polynomials.Denoting by µG the spectral measure associated with the vector eØ, we maythus write

〈f(A)eØ, eØ〉=

∫

R

f(x)dµG(x)(2)

for any f ∈ LC(µG). Taking f(x) = xn (n ∈N), we obtain in particular

γn = 〈AneØ, eØ〉=

∫xn dµG(x)

(3)=#{paths of length n from Ø to Ø in G}.

Since ‖eØ‖= 1, the spectral measure µT is a probability measure on R. Wewill now study its Cauchy–Stieltjes transform. By definition, the Cauchy–Stieltjes transform of a probability measure µ on R is the holomorphic func-tion mµ defined on the upper complex half-plane C+ by

mµ : z 7→

∫

R

dµ(x)

x− z.

Note that mµ belongs to the set H of holomorphic functions f on C+ sat-isfying

∀z ∈C+ ℑf(z)≥ 0 and |f(z)| ≤ (ℑz)−1,

which is compact in the normed space of holomorphic functions on C+ (Mon-

tel’s theorem).Henceforth, we will assume that G is a rooted tree T . We write j ≻ i

to mean that i ∈ V is an ancestor of j ∈ V , and we let Ti be the subtreeof T restricted to {j ∈ V , j � i}, rooted at i. Its adjacency operator Ai

is the projection of A on Vect(ej, j � i). Since it is also self-adjoint, wemay consider its spectral measure µTi associated with the vector ei, and itsCauchy–Stieltjes transform mTi . The recursive structure of trees implies asimple well-known recursion for the family (mTi)i∈V :


Proposition 4. The family (mTi)i∈V is solution in HV to the systemof equations, for all z ∈C+,

fi(z) =−

(z +

∑

j∈D(i)

fj(z)

)−1

,(4)

where D(i) = {j≻ i, |j|= |i|+ 1} denotes the set of immediate children of i.

Proof. As we will see, the recursion follows from a classical operatorversion of the Schur complement formula (see, e.g., Proposition 2.1 in Klein[17] for a similar argument). We write the proof for completeness. Define theoperator U on ℓ2(V ) by its matrix elements,

〈UeØ, ei〉= 〈Uei, eØ〉= 1= 〈AeØ, ei〉,

for all i ∈ D(Ø), and 〈Uej, ek〉 = 0 otherwise. We then have the followingdecomposition:

A= U +⊕

i∈D(Ø)

Ai,

where Ai, is the projection of A on Vi = Vect(ej, j � i). Since A and A =⊕i∈D(Ø)Ai are self-adjoint operators, their respective resolvents

R : z 7→ (A− zI)−1, R : z 7→ (A− zI)−1

are well defined on C+, and the resolvent identity gives

R(z)UR(z) =R(z)− R(z).(5)

In particular, for all k ∈ V ,

〈R(z)UR(z)eØ, ek〉= 〈R(z)eØ, ek〉 − 〈R(z)eØ, ek〉.

Now, using the definition of U , we may expand the left-hand side as(〈R(z)eØ, ek〉

∑

i∈D(Ø)

〈R(z)eØ, ei〉

)+

(〈R(z)eØ, eØ〉

∑

i∈D(Ø)

〈R(z)ei, ek〉

).

But R(z)eØ =−z−1eØ and each Vi, i ∈D(Ø), is stable for R. Therefore, inthe special case where k=Ø, the above equality simplifies into

−1

z

∑

i∈D(Ø)

〈R(z)eØ, ei〉= 〈R(z)eØ, eØ〉+1

z,

while for k ∈D(Ø), it gives

〈R(z)eØ, eØ〉〈R(z)ek, ek〉= 〈R(z)eØ, ek〉.


Combining both, we finally obtain

〈R(z)eØ, eØ〉=−

(z +

∑

i∈D(Ø)

〈R(z)ei, ei〉

)−1

,

which, by (2) with f(x) = (x− z)−1, is precisely

mTØ(z) =−

(z +

∑

i∈D(Ø)

mTi(z)

)−1

.�

When T is finite, the set of equations (4) uniquely determines the Cauchy–Stieltjes transforms (mTi)i∈V , which can be computed iteratively from theleaves up to the root. Under an extra condition on T , this extends to theinfinite case. Recall that (T )n denote the truncation of T to the first ngenerations. In what follows, we will make the additional assumption

limsupn→∞

|∂(T )n|1/n <∞.(B)

Proposition 5. If T satisfies assumption (B), then (mTi)i∈V is theunique solution in HV to the system of equations (4), and for all i ∈ V ,

mTi = limn→∞

m(Ti)n ,(6)

in the sense of compact convergence on C+.

Proof. If (fi)i∈V ∈HV and (gi)i∈V ∈HV are solutions to the system ofequations (4), then we can write, for all i ∈ V , z ∈C+,

|fi(z)− gi(z)|=

∣∣∣∣

∑j∈D(i)(fj(z)− gj(z))

(z +∑

j∈D(i) fj(z))(z +∑

j∈D(i) gj(z))

∣∣∣∣

≤1

(ℑ(z))2

∑

j∈D(i)

|fj(z)− gj(z)|.

Iterating this n times, and then using the uniform bound |fj(z)− gj(z)| ≤2× (ℑ(z))−1, we obtain

|fi(z)− gi(z)| ≤1

(ℑ(z))2n

∑

j∈∂(Ti)n

|fj(z)− gj(z)| ≤2|∂(Ti)n|

(ℑ(z))2n+1.

Therefore, we see that under assumption (B),

∀i ∈ V |fi(z)− gi(z)|= 0


as soon as ℑ(z) is sufficiently large, hence for all z ∈ C+ by holomorphy.Finally, denote by Mn the denumerable vector of holomorphic functions(m(Ti)n)i∈V ∈ HV . Since H is compact, the sequence (Mn)n≥0 is relativelycompact, and since each vector Mn satisfies the partial set of equations (4)corresponding to the truncated tree (T )n, any limit point M∞ must satisfythe global set of equations (4) corresponding to the full tree T , so M∞ isnothing but (mTi)i∈V . Therefore, the sequence of vectors (Mn)n≥0 convergesto M∞ = (mTi)i∈V , and this is exactly (6). �

2.3. Atomic mass at zero. Our goal here is to characterize µT ({0}), theatomic mass at zero of the spectral measure µT .

Proposition 6. If T satisfies assumption (B), then the family (µTi({0}))i∈Vis the largest solution in [0,1]V to the system of equations

xi =

(1 +

∑

j∈D(i)

( ∑

k∈D(j)

xk

)−1)−1

,(7)

with the conventions 1/0 =∞ and 1/∞= 0.

Proof. Since T is acyclic, (3) ensures that the measures µTi , i ∈ V , aresymmetric. Therefore, for all t > 0, i ∈ V

mTi(it) =

∫

R

x

x2 + t2dµTi(x) + i

∫

R

t

x2 + t2dµTi(x) = i

∫

R

t

x2 + t2dµTi(x).

Hence, if we define hTi(t) :=−itmTi(it) ∈ [0,1], then by the dominated con-vergence theorem,

hTi(t) =

∫

R

t2 dµTi(x)

x2 + t2−−−→t→0

µTi({0}).

But, iterating once equation (4), we get

hTi(t) =

(1 +

∑

j∈D(i)

(t2 +

∑

k∈D(j)

hTk(t)

)−1)−1

,(8)

so that letting t→ 0 yields exactly that (µTi({0}))i∈V must satisfy (7).Again, when the rooted tree T is finite, this recursion characterizes the

family (µTi({0}))i∈V , since it can be computed iteratively from the leavesup to the root. However, when T is infinite, (7) may admit several othersolutions. Fortunately, among all of them, (µTi({0}))i∈V is always the largest.To see why, consider any solution (xi)i∈T ∈ [0,1]V . Fixing t > 0, let us show

by induction that for all n ∈N,

∀i ∈ V xi ≤ h(Ti)2n(t) :=−itm(Ti)2n(it).(9)


This will conclude our proof since we may then let n→∞ to obtain xi ≤hTi(t) by Proposition 5, and let finally t → 0 to reach the desired xi ≤µTi({0}). The base case n = 0 is trivial because the right-hand equals 1.Now, if (9) holds for some n ∈N, then for all i ∈ V ,

xi =

(1 +

∑

j∈D(i)

( ∑

k∈D(j)

xk

)−1)−1

≤

(1 +

∑

j∈D(i)

(t2 +

∑

k∈D(j)

h(Tk)2n(t)

)−1)−1

= h(Ti)2n+2(t),

where the first equality follows from the fact that (xi)i∈T satisfies (7), themiddle inequality from the induction hypothesis, and the last equality from(8) applied to (Ti)2n+2. �

2.4. Galton–Watson trees. We now apply the above results to Galton–Watson trees. Let F∗ be a distribution on N with finite mean, and let T bea GWT with degree distribution F∗, that is, a random locally finite rootedtree obtained by a Galton–Watson branching process where the root hasoffspring distribution F∗, and all other genitors have offspring distributionF , where

∀k ≥ 1 F (k− 1) = kF∗(k)/∑

ℓ

ℓF∗(ℓ).(10)

In the rest of this paper, we will make the following second moment assump-tion on the distribution F∗ :

∑k k

2F∗(k) <∞, or equivalently∑

k kF (k) <∞. It is in fact a sufficient condition for all the previous results to holdalmost surely.

Proposition 7. If F∗ has a finite second moment, then T satisfies (A)and (B) with probability one. In particular, the adjacency operator A is al-most surely self-adjoint, and the atomic mass at zero of the spectral measureat the root of T is characterized by the fixed-point equation (7).

Proof. Let N denote a generic random variable with law F . For (B), itis well known (and easy to check by a martingale argument) that the size ofthe nth generation in a GWT with offspring distribution F behaves like EnNas n→ ∞, in the precise sense that almost surely, n−1 log|∂(T )n| → EN ,which is finite by assumption. As far as (A) is concerned now, if T is finitethere is nothing to do. Now if T is infinite, we build an exhausting sequenceof finite vertex subsets with uniformly bounded boundary degree as follows:


the finite first moment assumption on F guarantees the existence of a largeenough integer κ≥ 1 so that

∑

k≥κ

kF (k)< 1.(11)

For each vertex of T , color it in red if it has less than κ children and inblue otherwise. If the root Ø is red, set S1 = {Ø}. Otherwise, the con-nected blue component containing the root is a GWT with average offspring∑

k≥κ kF (k) < 1, so it is almost-surely finite, and we define S1 as the setof its vertices, together with their (red) external boundary vertices. Nowfor each external boundary vertex i ∈ ∂S+

1 , we repeat the procedure on thesubtree Ti, and we define S2 as the union of S1 and all the resulting sub-sets. Iterating this procedure, we obtain an exhaustive sequence of subsetsS1, S2, . . .⊆ V whose boundary degree satisfies by construction ∆(∂Sn) = κ,which is exactly (A). �

Owing to the recursive distributional nature of GWTs, the set of equa-tions (7) defining µT ({0}) takes the much nicer form of a Recursive dis-tributional equation (RDE), which we now make explicit. We denote P(N)(resp., P([0,1])) the space of probability distributions on N ([0,1], resp.).Given F,F ′ ∈ P(N) and ν ∈ P([0,1]), we denote by ΘF,F ′(ν) the distribu-tion of the [0,1]-valued r.v.

Y =1

1+∑N

i=1(∑N ′

i

j=1Xij)−1,(12)

where N ∼ F , N ′i ∼ F ′ and Xij ∼ ν, all of them being independent. With

this notation in hand, the previous result implies the following: if F ∗ has afinite second moment, then µT ({0}) has distribution ΘF∗,F (ν

∗0 ), where F is

given by (10) and ν∗0 is the largest solution to the RDE

ν∗0 =ΘF,F (ν∗0).(13)

The remainder of this section is dedicated to solving (13) when F∗ hasa finite second moment. We will assume that F∗(0) + F∗(1) < 1; otherwiseF = δ0 and ν∗0 = δ1 is clearly the only solution to (13). We let ϕ∗(z) =∑

n≥0F∗(n)zn be the generating function of F∗. For any x ∈ [0,1], we set

x= ϕ′∗(1− x)/ϕ′

∗(1), and we define

M(x) = ϕ′∗(1)xx+ϕ∗(1− x) + ϕ∗(1− x)− 1.

Observe that M ′(x) = ϕ′′∗(1− x)(x− x), and therefore any x ∈ [0,1] where

M admits a local extremum must satisfy x= x. We will say that M admitsa historical record at x if x= x and M(x)>M(y) for any 0≤ y < x. Since[0,1] is compact andM is analytic, there are only finitely many such records.In fact, they are in one-to-one correspondence with the solutions to the RDE(13).


Theorem 8. If p1 < · · ·< pr are the locations of the historical records ofM , then the RDE (13) admits exactly r solutions; moreover, these solutionscan be stochastically ordered, say ν1 < · · ·< νr, and for any i ∈ {1, . . . , r}:

(i) νi({0}c) = pi;

(ii) ΘF∗,F (νi) has mean M(pi).

In particular, E[µT ({0})] =maxx∈[0,1]M(x).

It now remains to prove Theorem 8. The space P([0,1]) is naturallyequipped with:

- a natural topology, which is that of weak convergence,

µn−−−→n→∞

µ ⇐⇒

∫ϕdµn−−−→

n→∞

∫ϕdµ

for any continuous function ϕ : [0,1]→R;

- a natural order, which is that of stochastic domination,

µ1 ≤ µ2 ⇐⇒

∫ϕdµ1 ≤

∫ϕdµ2

for any continuous, increasing function ϕ : [0,1]→R.

The proof is based on two lemmas, the first one being straightforward.

Lemma 9. For any F,F ′ ∈ P(N) \{δ0}, ΘF,F ′ is continuous and strictlyincreasing on P([0,1]).

Lemma 10. For any ν ∈P([0,1]), letting p= ν({0}c), we have:

(i) ΘF,F (ν)({0}c) = p;

(ii) if ΘF,F (ν)≤ ν, then the mean of ΘF∗,F (ν) is at least M(p);(iii) if ΘF,F (ν)≥ ν, then the mean of ΘF∗,F (ν) is at most M(p).

In particular, if ν is a fixed point of ΘF,F , then p = p and ΘF∗,F (ν) hasmean M(p).

Proof. In (12) it is clear that Y > 0 if and only if for any i ∈ {1, . . . ,N},there exists j ∈ {1, . . . ,N ′

i} such that Xij > 0. Denoting by ϕ the generatingfunction of F , this rewrites

ΘF,F (ν)({0}c) = ϕ(1−ϕ(1− ν({0}c))).

But from (10) it follows that ϕ(·) = ϕ′∗(·)/ϕ

′∗(1), that is, ϕ(1−x) = x, hence

the first result.


Now let X ∼ ν, N∗ ∼ F∗, N ∼ F , and let S,S1, . . . have the distribution ofthe sum of N i.i.d. copies of X , all these variables being independent. Then,ΘF∗,F (ν) has mean

E

[1

1 +∑N∗

i=1 S−1i

]= E

[(1−

∑N∗

i=1S−1i

1 +∑N∗

i=1 S−1i

)1{∀i=1,...,N∗,Si>0}

]

= ϕ∗(1− p)

− ϕ′∗(1)E

[S−1

S−1 + 1+∑N

i=1 S−1i

1{S>0,∀i=1,...,N∗,Si>0}

]

= ϕ∗(1− p)− ϕ′∗(1)E

[Y

Y + S1{S>0}

],

where the second and last lines follow from (10) and Y ∼ΘF,F (ν), respec-tively. Now, for any s > 0, x 7→ x

x+s is increasing, and hence, depending onwhether ΘF,F (ν)≥ ν or ΘF,F (ν)≤ ν, ΘF∗,F (ν) has mean at most/least

ϕ∗(1− p)− ϕ′∗(1)E

[X

X + S1{S>0}

]

(14)

= ϕ∗(1− p)− pϕ′∗(1)E

[1

1 + N1{N≥1}

]with N =

N∑

i=1

1{Xi>0}.

But using the definition (10) and the well-known identity (n + 1)(nd

)=

(d+1)(n+1d+1

), one can easily check that

ϕ∗(1− p)− pϕ′∗(1)E

[1

1 + N1{N≥1}

]

= ϕ∗(1− p)− pϕ′∗(1)

∑

n≥1

F (n)n∑

d=1

(nd

)pd(1− p)n−d

d+1

=M(p). �

We now have all the ingredients we need to prove Theorem 8.

Proof of Theorem 8. Let p ∈ [0,1] such that p= p, and define ν0 =Bernoulli(p). From Lemma 10 we know that ΘF,F (ν0)({0}

c) = p, and sinceBernoulli(p) is the largest element of P([0,1]) putting mass p on {0}c, wehave ΘF,F (ν0)≤ ν0. Immediately, Lemma 9 guarantees that the limit

ν∞ = limk→∞

ցΘkF,F (ν0)

exists in P([0,1]) and is a fixed point of ΘF,F . Moreover, by Fatou’s lemma,the number p∞ = ν∞({0}c) must satisfy p∞ ≤ p. But then the mean ofΘF∗,F (ν∞) must be both:


- equal to M(p∞) by Lemma 10 with ν = ν∞ and- at least M(p) since ∀k ≥ 0, the mean of ΘF∗,F (Θ

kF,F (µ0)) is at least M(p)

[Lemma 10 with ν =ΘkF,F (ν0)].

We have just shown both M(p) ≤M(p∞) and p∞ ≤ p. From this, we willnow deduce the one-to-one correspondence between historical records of Mand fixed points of ΘF,F . We treat each inclusion separately:

- If M admits a historical record at p, then clearly p∞ = p, so ν∞ is a fixedpoint satisfying ν∞({0}c) = p.

- Conversely, considering a fixed point ν with ν({0}c) = p, we want todeduce that M admits a historical record at p. We first claim that νis the above defined limit ν∞. Indeed, ν ≤ Bernoulli(p) implies ν ≤ ν∞(ΘF,F is increasing), and in particular p ≤ p∞. Therefore, p = p∞ andM(p) =M(p∞). In other words, the two ordered distributions ΘF∗,F (ν)≤ΘF∗,F (ν∞) share the same mean and hence are equal. This ensures ν = ν∞.Now, if q < p is any historical record location, we know from part 1 that

λ∞ = limk→∞

ցΘkF,F (Bernoulli(q))

is a fixed point of ΘF,F satisfying λ∞({0}c) = q. But q < p, so Bernoulli(q)<Bernoulli(p), hence λ∞ ≤ ν∞. Moreover, this limit inequality is strict be-cause λ∞({0}c) = q < p= ν∞({0}c). Consequently, ΘF∗,F (λ∞)<ΘF∗,F (ν∞)and taking expectations,M(q)<M(p). Thus,M admits a historical recordat p. �

3. Convergence of the spectral measure.

3.1. Local convergence of rooted graphs. In this paragraph, we brieflyrecall the framework of local convergence introduced by Benjamini andSchramm [7] and Aldous and Steele [3] (see also Aldous and Lyons [2]).

We recall that for integer t, (G)t is the rooted subgraph spanned bythe vertices at distance at most t from the root. We consider the set G∗

of all locally finite, connected rooted graphs, taken up to root-preservingisomorphism. With the terminology of combinatorics, G∗ is the set of rootedunlabeled connected locally finite graphs. We define a metric on G∗ by lettingthe distance between two rooted graphs G1 and G2 be 1/(1 + T ), where Tis the supremum of those t ≥ 0 such that there exists a root-preservingisomorphism from (G1)t to (G2)t. Convergence with respect to this metricis called local convergence.

This makes G∗ into a separable and complete metric space (see Section 2in [2]). In particular, we can endow G∗ with its Borel σ-algebra and speakabout weak convergence of random elements in G∗. Specifically, a sequence


of probability distributions ρ1, ρ2, . . . on G∗ converges weakly to a probabilitydistribution ρ, denoted by ρn =⇒ ρ, if

∫

G∗

f dρn−−−→n→∞

∫

G∗

f dρ

for all bounded continuous function f :G∗ →R. This is called the local weakconvergence.

Let us finally mention three important examples of random graph se-quences that converge locally weakly to Galton–Watson trees. The Erdos–Renyi graphs with connectivity c on the vertex set {1, . . . , n}, rooted at Ø = 1converges locally weakly to the GWT with degree distribution Poisson(c).The uniform k-regular (k ≥ 2) graph on {1, . . . , n}, rooted at Ø = 1, con-verges weakly to the infinite k-regular tree. More generally, if F∗ is a degreedistribution on N with finite mean, the random graph-sequence with asymp-totic degree distribution F∗ converges to the GWT with degree distributionF∗. Note that in the above examples, the vertices are exchangeable and thechoice Ø= 1 is arbitrary: equivalently, we could have chosen Ø uniformly atrandom among all vertices, independently of the edge structure.

3.2. Continuity of the spectral measure. Since the elements of G∗ havecountably many vertices and are only considered up to isomorphism, we maywithout loss of generalities embed all vertices into the same, fixed genericvertex set V , say the set of finite words over integers: the root is representedby the empty-word Ø, and vertices at distance t from the root are repre-sented by word of length t in the usual way. All adjacency operators canthus be viewed as acting on the same Hilbert space ℓ2(V ), their action be-ing defined as zero on the orthogonal complement of the subspace spannedby their vertices. Note that this does not affect the spectral measure at theroot µT .

If (Gn) is a converging sequence in G∗, say to G ∈ G∗, we may even relabelthe vertices in a consistent way so that the root-preserving isomorphismsappearing in the definition of local convergence become identities: for everyt ∈N, there exists nt ∈N such that

n≥ nt =⇒ (Gn)t = (G)t.(15)

Fixing a word i ∈ V , and setting t equal 1 plus the distance from i to theroot above, we obtain that for all n ≥ nt, i is a vertex of Gn if and onlyif it is a vertex of G, and in that case its neighbors in Gn are exactly itsneighbors in G. In other words, Anei =Aei. By linearity, it follows that anyfinitely supported vector ψ :V →C must satisfy

Anψℓ2(V )−−−→n→∞

Aψ,


and since those ψ are dense in ℓ2(V ), Theorem VIII.25(a) in Reed andSimon [18] guarantees that An →A in the strong resolvent sense, providedof course that A,A1, . . . are self-adjoint. In particular, this implies the weakconvergence of the corresponding spectral measures at the root and thecompact convergence of their associated Cauchy–Stieltjes transforms,

mGn

H−−−→n→∞

mG and µGn

P(R)−−−→n→∞

µG.

Note that this last statement does not depend anymore on the way G,G1, . . .have been embedded. We have thus established the following continuity re-sult:

Proposition 11. Let G,G1,G2, . . . be elements of G∗ whose adjacencyoperators are self-adjoint. Let µG, µG1 , . . . denote the associated spectral mea-sures at their root, and mG,mG1 , . . . the corresponding Cauchy–Stieltjes trans-

forms. If GnG∗

−−−→n→∞

G, then

mGn

H−−−→n→∞

mG and µGn

P(R)−−−→n→∞

µG.

As a consequence, when G,G1,G2, . . . are random elements of G∗, the sameimplication holds with all convergences being replaced by their distributionalversions. More precisely, if the law of Gn converges weakly to that of G, then

mGn

P(H)−−−→n→∞

mG and µGn

P(P(R))−−−−→n→∞

µG.

3.3. Connection with the empirical spectral measure of a finite graph. Inthe case of a finite (nonrooted) graph Gn = (Vn,En) on n vertices, the ad-jacency operator An is a particularly simple object: it is bounded and self-adjoint, and it has exactly n eigenvalues λ1(An)≥ · · · ≥ λn(An) (with multi-plicities), all of them being real. Moreover, ℓ2(Vn)≡C

n admits an orthonor-mal basis of eigenvectors (b1, . . . , bn), a priori different from the canonicalorthonormal basis (ev)v∈Vn , such that

∀x∈Cn Anx=

n∑

i=1

λi(An)〈x, bi〉bi.

If (Gn, v) denotes the graph Gn when rooted at v, the spectral measure atthe root is simply

µ(Gn,v) =n∑

i=1

|〈bi, ev〉|2δλi(An).


In fact µ(Gn,v) can be interpreted as the local contribution of vertex v to theempirical spectral measure µn of Gn. Indeed, the above formula implies

1

n

∑

v∈Vn

µ(Gn,v) =1

n

n∑

i=1

δλi(An) = µn.(16)

Note that the left-hand side can be reinterpreted as the expectation ofµ(Gn,Ø) under a uniform choice of the root Ø. More generally, if Gn is arandom graph on n vertices, we denote by U(Gn) the random element of G∗

obtained by rooting Gn at a uniformly chosen vertex, independently of therandom edge-structure. Similarly, we define U2(Gn) as the random element((Gn,Ø1), (Gn,Ø2)) in G∗×G∗, where (Ø1,Ø2) is a uniformly chosen pair ofvertices. Finally we let µn denote the (random) empirical spectral measureof the adjacency matrix of Gn. With this notation, we have the followingcorollary.

Corollary 12. If U(Gn) converges weakly to a rooted GWT T whosedegree distribution F∗ has a finite second moment, then

limn→∞

Eµn = EµT ,

where µT denotes the local spectral measure at the root of T . If moreoverU2(Gn) converges weakly to (T1, T2), two independent copies of T , then inprobability,

limn→∞

µn = EµT .

In the above-mentioned cases of Erdos–Renyi random graphs and randomgraphs with asymptotic degree distribution F∗, the assumption on U2(Gn) iseasily checked. This corollary implies that the study of the limiting spectralmeasure of random tree-like graphs boils down to the study of the localspectral measure at the root of the limiting GWT. As we have seen, thelatter is fully characterized by a simple RDE involving its Cauchy–Stieltjestransform. Note, however, that this result does not give the full statementof Theorem 1(i); the almost sure convergence will be considered later.

Proof of Corollary 12. By (16), we may write for any boundedcontinuous function f :R→R,

E

∫

R

f dµn =1

n

∑

Ø∈Vn

E

∫

R

f dµ(Gn,Ø)−−−→n→∞

E

∫

R

f dµT ,

where the convergence follows from the weak convergence U(Gn)→ T andthe continuity result stated in Proposition 11. This is exactly saying that


Eµn →EµT . If, moreover, U2(Gn) converges weakly to (T1, T2), then by thesame argument,

E

(∫

R

f dµn

)2

=1

n2

∑

Ø1∈Vn,Ø2∈Vn

E

(∫

R

f dµ(Gn,Ø1)

∫

R

f dµ(Gn,Ø2)

)

−−−→n→∞

(E

∫

R

f dµT

)2

,

and therefore, the second moment method suffices to conclude that∫

R

f dµnP

−−−→n→∞

E

∫

R

f dµT ,

which is exactly saying that µn → EµT in probability. �

3.4. Main result: Convergence of the rank. We are now in position tostate the main result of this paper. We consider a sequence of finite randomgraphs G1,G2, . . . converging in distribution (once uniformly rooted) to aGWT whose degree distribution F∗ has a finite second moment. As above,ϕ∗(x) =

∑k F∗(k)x

k denotes the generating function of F∗, and we considerthe function

M :x ∈ [0,1] 7→ ϕ′∗(1)xx+ ϕ∗(1− x) +ϕ∗(1− x)− 1

where x= ϕ′∗(1− x)/ϕ′

∗(1).

Recall that M ′(x) = ϕ′′∗(1− x)(x− x) so that M(x) is a local extremum if

and only if x= x.

Theorem 13. Assume that U2(Gn) converges weakly to (T1, T2), twoindependent copies of a GWT whose degree distribution F∗ has a finite sec-ond moment. If the first local extremum of M is the global maximum, thenin probability,

limn→∞

1

nrank(An) = 1− max

x∈[0,1]M(x).

Moreover, a simple sufficient condition for the assumption on M to hold isthat ϕ′′

∗ is log-concave.

If the assumption U2(Gn)→ (T1, T2) is replaced by the weaker U(Gn)→T , then we only have convergence of the expected rank.

The log-concavity of ϕ′′∗ is a sufficient condition for the first local ex-

tremum of M to be a global maximum. Setting h :x 7→ x− x, we find

∀x∈ (0,1) h′′(x) =ϕ′′∗(1− x)

ϕ′∗(1)

ϕ′′∗(1− x)

ϕ′∗(1)

g(x)


with

g(x) =ϕ′′∗(1− x)ϕ′′′

∗ (1− x)

ϕ′∗(1)ϕ

′′∗(1− x)

−ϕ′′′∗ (1− x)

ϕ′′∗(1− x)

.

Now, if ϕ′′∗ is log-concave, then x 7→ ϕ′′′

∗ (x)/ϕ′′∗(x) is nonincreasing on (0,1),

and therefore, g is decreasing (as the difference of a decreasing function anda nondecreasing one). Consequently, h′′ can vanish at most once on (0,1),hence h′ admits at most two zeros on [0,1], and h at most three. The uniqueroot xc of x= x is always one of them, and if x is another one, then so is x.Therefore, only two cases are possible:

- Either xc is the only zero of h; then h(0) > 0 and h(1) < 0, so M ismaximum at xc,

- or h admits exactly three zeros x− < xc < x+; in this case the decreasingfunction g has to vanish somewhere in (0,1), so h′′ is positive and thennegative on (0,1). Consequently, h is decreasing, then increasing, and thendecreasing again. In other words, M is minimum at xc and maximum atx−, x+.

In both cases, the first local extremum of M is its global maximum.The remaining part of this section is devoted to the proof of Theorem 13.

First, recall that n−1 rank(An) = 1− µn({0}). From Corollary 12, we havein probability,

lim supn

µn({0})≤ EµT ({0}).

In order to prove Theorem 13, it is thus sufficient to establish that

lim infn

Eµn({0})≥ maxx∈[0,1]

M(x).(17)

To do so, we will use the Karp–Sipser leaf removal algorithm, which wasintroduced in [15] to efficiently build a matching (i.e., a subset of pairwisedisjoint edges) on a finite graph.

For our purposes, the leaf removal algorithm on a locally finite graphG = (V,E) can be described as an iterative procedure that constructs twonondecreasing sequences (At)t≥0 and (Bt)t≥0 of subsets of V as follows: westart with

A0 = {v ∈ V : deg(v;G) = 0} and B0 =∅.

Thus, A0 is simply the set of isolated vertices in G. Then, at each step t ∈N,we let Gt be the subgraph of G spanned by the vertex-set Vt = V \ (At ∪Bt ∪ Pt), where P0 =∅. We denote by

Lt = {v ∈ Vt : deg(v;Gt) = 1}


the set of its leaves. We also introduce the set of vertices that are adjacentto those leaves,

Wt = {v ∈ Vt \Lt :∃u ∈Lt, (uv) ∈E}.

We add to Pt the set of pairs of adjacent vertices in Lt,

Pt+1 = Pt ∪ {v ∈ Lt,∃u∈Lt, (uv) ∈E}.

Then we set

At+1 =At ∪ {u ∈ Lt :∃v ∈Wt, (uv) ∈E} and Bt+1 = Bt ∪Wt.

In words, for any leaf u of Gt whose (unique) neighbor v is not a leaf, we addu to At and v to Bt. Then to obtain Gt+1, all nodes in At+1∪Bt+1∪Pt+1 areremoved from G (note that to obtain Gt+1, all leaves from Gt are removedwith their adjacent vertices). If Lt becomes empty, we have (At+1,Bt+1) =(At,Bt), and the algorithm stops. Finally, in the case where the graph G isfinite, we define

LRt(G) = |At(G)| − |Bt(G)|.(18)

Note that for any finite graph G, the sequence (LRt(G))t≥0 is nondecreasing.Note also that the leaf removal algorithm is well defined for a (possiblyinfinite) locally finite graph, but the definition (18) makes sense only forfinite graphs. The lemma below states a connection between these numbersand the rank of the adjacency matrix of G. It was first observed in [6], anda proof can be found in [14].

Although we will not need it here, let us make for completeness the fol-lowing observation, which was the original reason why this algorithm wasintroduced for finite graphs: each time a vertex v is added to Bt, one mayarbitrarily associate it with one of its neighboring leaves uv ∈At. Similarly,for every vertex v added to Pt, define uv as its other neighboring leaf in Pt.The edge-set {(vuv), v ∈ Bt∪Pt} is then a matching of G, and it is containedin at least one maximum matching of G. Since the graph is finite, the algo-rithm stops at a finite time t∗. The subgraph of G spanned by the vertex-setV \ (At∗ ∪ Bt∗ ∪ Pt∗) is a graph with minimal degree at least 2 called thecore of the graph.

Lemma 14. For any finite graph G with adjacency matrix A, and anyt ∈N,

dimker(A)≥ |LRt(G)|.

Proof. Let u1 ∈ L0(G) be a leaf of G and v its unique neighboringvertex. Let G′ =G \ {u1, v} and A(G′) the adjacency matrix of G′, we have

dimkerA(G) = dimkerA(G′)


(see [6]). Now, if {u1, . . . , ua} ⊂ L0(G), is the set of leaves adjacent to v,then {u2, . . . , ua} are isolated vertices in G′. The vectors eu2 , . . . , eua are thuseigenvectors of the kernel of A′. By orthogonal decomposition, we deducethat

dimkerA(G) = a− 1 + dimker(A(G \ {v,u1, . . . , ua})).

By linearity, we obtain that for any integer t,

dimkerA(G) = |At(G)| − |Bt(G)|+dimker(A(G \ (At ∪Bt ∪ Pt)))

≥ |At(G)| − |Bt(G)|. �

The lower bound (17) will now follow from the following proposition.

Proposition 15. Let T be a rooted GWT whose degree distribution F∗

has a finite mean. Then

limt→∞

P(Ø ∈At(T ))− P(Ø ∈ Bt(T )) =M(x0),

where x0 ∈ [0,1] is the location of the first local extremum of M .

Proof. The argument is close to that appearing in [15], Section 4. Forany vertex i 6=Ø, we run the leaf removal algorithm on Ti which is the treeTi with an additional infinite path starting from i. We first compute thecorresponding probabilities αt = P(i ∈ At(Ti)) and βt = P(i ∈ Bt(Ti)). Forour purpose, adding the infinite path amounts to increase artificially thedegree of the root by 1: to be a leaf in Ti, the root needs to be isolated inTi. By construction, i is in Bt(Ti) if and only if one of its children k is inAt(Tk). Hence if N denotes the number of children of i, we have

βt = E[1− (1−αt)N ] = 1−ϕ(1−αt),

where ϕ is the generating function of N with distribution F given by (10).Similarly, i is in At(Ti) if and only if all its children k are in Bt−1(Tk), sothat αt = ϕ(βt−1). Hence for all t≥ 1, we have αt = ϕ(1−ϕ(1−αt−1)) andα0 = 0. Since x 7→ ϕ(1− ϕ(1− x)) is nondecreasing, αt converges to α, thesmallest fixed point of the equation x= ϕ(1−ϕ(1−x)), and βt converges toβ = 1−ϕ(1−α). Note that ϕ(x) = ϕ′

∗(x)/ϕ′∗(1), where ϕ∗ is the generating

function of F∗. Hence, with the notation of Section 2.4, we have β = 1− α,α= α. In particular, we get x0 = α.

We now compute P(Ø ∈At(T ))− P(Ø ∈ Bt(T )). Recall that D(Ø) is theset of neighbors of the root Ø. Here are all the possible cases:

- if ∀i ∈D(Ø), i ∈ Bt−1(Ti), then Ø ∈At(T );- if there exists j ∈D(Ø)\(Bt−1(Tj)∪At(Tj)) and ∀i∈D(Ø)\j, i ∈ Bt−1(Ti),then Ø ∈At(T );


- if there exists i 6= j ∈ D(Ø) such that i ∈ At(Ti) and j /∈ Bt−1(Tj), thenØ ∈ Bt(T ).

In all other cases, Ø /∈At(T )∪Bt(T ). In summary, we have

P(Ø ∈At(T ))

= P(∀i ∈D(Ø), i ∈ Bt−1(Ti))

+ P(∃j∈D(Ø) \ (Bt−1(Tj)∪At(Tj)),∀i∈D(Ø) \ j, i∈ Bt−1(Ti))

= ϕ∗(βt−1) + (1− βt−1 −αt)ϕ′∗(βt−1),

P(Ø ∈ Bt(T ))

= P(∃i 6= j ∈D(Ø), i ∈At(Tj), j /∈ Bt−1(Tj))

= P(∃i ∈D(Ø), i ∈At(Ti))

− P(∃i∈D(Ø), i ∈At(Ti),∀j∈D(Ø) \ i, j ∈ Bt−1(Tj))

= 1−ϕ∗(1− αt)− αtϕ′∗(βt−1).

Hence,

limt→∞

P(Ø ∈At(T ))− P(Ø ∈ Bt(T )) = ϕ∗(β) + (1− β)ϕ′∗(β) +ϕ∗(1− α)− 1

=M(α) =M(x0),

where we have used the identities: β = 1 − α, ϕ′∗(x)/ϕ

′∗(1) = 1− x and

1− β = α. �

Proof of Theorem 13. As already pointed out, it is sufficient to prove(17). From Lemma 14, for any integer t,

Eµn({0})≥1

nELRt(Gn) = P(Ø ∈At(Gn))− P(Ø ∈ Bt(Gn)),

where Ø is the uniformly drawn root of U(Gn). Note that the events {Ø ∈At(Gn)} and {Ø ∈ Bt(Gn)} belong to the σ-field generated by (Gn,Ø)t+1.Thus the convergence of U(Gn) implies that for any t ∈N,

limn→∞

P(Ø ∈At(Gn))− P(Ø ∈ Bt(Gn)) = P(Ø ∈At(T ))− P(Ø ∈ Bt(T )),

where T is a rooted GWT with degree distribution F∗ (this is a standardapplication of the objective method [3]). �

4. Conclusion. As explained in the Introduction, the condition on Min Theorem 13 is restrictive, and the convergence of the rank when thiscondition is not met (as in the example described in the Introduction) isleft open. Without any condition on the function M , our work gives only


the following bounds: assume that U2(Gn) converges weakly to (T1, T2), twoindependent copies of a GWT whose degree distribution F∗ has a finitesecond moment, then in probability,

1− maxx∈[0,1]

M(x)≤ lim infn→∞

1

nrank(An)≤ lim sup

n→∞

1

nrank(An)

(19)≤ 1−M(x0),

where x0 is the first local extremum of M . For example, if the sequenceof graphs converges weakly to a GWT with degree distribution F∗ withF∗(1) = 0, that is, with no leaf, then x0 = 0 and M(0) = F∗(0) so that theupper bound in (19) is trivial.

Our proof for the upper bound on the rank of An relies on the analysis ofthe leaf removal algorithm on the graph Gn. As explained above, this algo-rithm when applied to a finite graph produces a matching and a subgraph ofminimal degree 2 called the core. It turns out that the RDEs (12) and (13)also appear in the the analysis of the size of maximal matchings on graphs[11]. In particular, if the size of the core is o(n), the leaf removal produces an(almost) maximal matching [with error o(n)], and the bounds in (19) match.If the size of the core is not negligible, but the bounds in (19) match (as,e.g., in the case where ϕ′′

∗ is log-concave), our result shows that the asymp-totic size of the kernel of the core is zero. In [11], it is shown that this casecorresponds to the situation where there is an (almost) perfect matching onthe core of the graph. However, as soon as M(x0) 6=maxx∈[0,1]M(x), for anymaximal matching, there is a positive fraction of vertices in the core thatare not matched [11]. In this latter case, the convergence of the rank is leftopen.

APPENDIX: PROOF OF THEOREM 1

In the case where F∗ is the Poisson(c) distribution, we simply have

∀x∈ (0,1) ϕ(x) = ϕ∗(x) = exp(c(x− 1)),

whose second derivative is clearly log-concave. We may therefore apply The-orem 13 to the sequence of Erdos–Renyi graphs (Gn)n∈N. See Figure 2 for aplot of the corresponding function.

To complete the proof of Theorem 1, it only remains to improve the con-vergence in probability into an almost sure convergence. This is performedby a standard exploration procedure of the edges En of the graph Gn. For1≤ k ≤ n, we define the random variable in {0,1}k ,

Xk = (Aik)1≤i≤k.

By construction, the variables (Xk)1≤k≤n are independent random vari-ables. Note also that the upper half of the adjacency matrix An is precisely(X1, . . . ,Xn) and we may safely write An =A(X1, . . . ,Xn).


For 1 ≤ i ≤ n, let Ai(X1, . . . ,Xn) be the principal minor of A obtainedby removing ith row and column. If λ1 ≤ · · · ≤ λn and λ1,i ≤ · · · ≤ λn−1,i

denote the eigenvalues of A(X1, . . . ,Xn) and Ai(X1, . . . ,Xn), by the Cauchyinterlacing theorem, for all 1≤ j ≤ n− 1,

λj ≤ λj,i ≤ λj+1.

In particular,

|dimkerA(X1, . . . ,Xn)− dimkerAi(X1, . . . ,Xn)| ≤ 1.

We note that Ai(X1, . . . ,Xn) does not depend on Xi. Therefore, for all(xj ∈ {0,1}j),1≤ j ≤ n, x′i ∈ {0,1}i:

|dimkerA(x1, . . . , xi−1, xi, xi+1, . . . , xn)

− dimkerA(x1, . . . , xi−1, x′i, xi+1, . . . , xn)| ≤ 2.

In other words, the function (x1, . . . , xn) 7→ dimkerA(x1, . . . , xn) is 2-Lipschitzfor the Hamming distance. By a standard use of Azuma’s martingale differ-ence inequality we get

P(|dimkerA(X1, . . . ,Xn)−EdimkerA(X1, . . . ,Xn)| ≥ t)≤ 2exp

(−t2

8n

).

From the Borel–Cantelli lemma, we obtain that almost surely,

limn

dimkerA(X1, . . . ,Xn)−EdimkerA(X1, . . . ,Xn)

n= 0.

Since we have already proved that EdimkerA(X1, . . . ,Xn)/n converges tomaxx∈[0,1]M(x), we deduce that dimkerA(X1, . . . ,Xn)/n convergences a.s.to maxx∈[0,1]M(x).

It remains to deal with the almost sure convergence in Theorem 1(i). Wehave already proved that µn converges in probability to µ. Henceforth Eµnconverges to µ. It is thus sufficient to prove that almost surely, for all t ∈R,µn((−∞, t])−Eµn((−∞, t]) converges to 0. The next lemma is a consequenceof Lidskii’s inequality. For a proof see Theorem 11.42 in [4].

Fig. 2. From left to right: plot of M for c= 2, c= e and c= 3.


Lemma 16 (Rank difference inequality). Let A, B be two n× n Her-mitian matrices with empirical spectral measures µA = 1

n

∑ni=1 δλi(A) and

µB = 1n

∑ni=1 δλi(B). Then

supt∈R

|µA((−∞, t])− µB((−∞, t])| ≤1

nrank(A−B).

Again, we view µn as a function of (X1, . . . ,Xn), and write µn = µ(X1,...,Xn).

Note that for all (xj ∈ {0,1}j),1≤ j ≤ n, x′i ∈ {0,1}i, A(x1, . . . , xi−1, xi, xi+1,. . . , xn)−A(x1, . . . , xi−1, x

′i, xi+1, . . . , xn) has only the ith row possibly dif-

ferent from 0, and we get

rank(A(x1, . . . , xi−1, xi, xi+1, . . . , xn)−A(x1, . . . , xi−1, x′i, xi+1, . . . , xn))≤ 2.

Therefore from Lemma 16, for any real t,

|µ(x1,...,xi−1,xi,xi+1,...,xn)((−∞, t])− µ(x1,...,xi−1,x′i,xi+1,...,xn)((−∞, t])| ≤1

n.

Again, Azuma’s martingale difference inequality leads to

P(|µ(X1,...,Xn)((−∞, t])− Eµ(X1,...,Xn)((−∞, t])| ≥ s)≤ 2exp

(−ns2

2

).

We deduce similarly from the Borel–Cantelli lemma that µn((−∞, t]) −Eµn((−∞, t]) converges a.s. to 0 and the proof of Theorem 1 is complete.

REFERENCES

[1] Aizenman, M., Sims, R. and Warzel, S. (2006). Stability of the absolutely contin-uous spectrum of random Schrodinger operators on tree graphs. Probab. TheoryRelated Fields 136 363–394. MR2257129

[2] Aldous, D. and Lyons, R. (2007). Processes on unimodular random networks. Elec-tron. J. Probab. 12 1454–1508. MR2354165

[3] Aldous, D. and Steele, J. M. (2004). The objective method: Probabilistic com-binatorial optimization and local weak convergence. In Probability on Discrete

Structures. Encyclopaedia Math. Sci. 110 1–72. Springer, Berlin. MR2023650[4] Bai, Z. D. and Silverstein, J. W. (2006). Spectral Analysis of Large Dimensional

Random Matrices. Mathematics Monograph Series 2. Science Press, Beijing.[5] Bauer, M. and Golinelli, O. (2000). On the kernel of tree incidence matrices. J.

Integer Seq. 3 Art. 00.1.4, 1 HTML document (electronic). MR1750745[6] Bauer, M. and Golinelli, O. (2001). Exactly solvable model with two conductor-

insulator transitions driven by impurities. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 2621–2624.[7] Benjamini, I. and Schramm, O. (2001). Recurrence of distributional limits of finite

planar graphs. Electron. J. Probab. 6 13 pp. (electronic). MR1873300[8] Bhanidi, S., Evans, S. N. and Sen, A. (2009). Spectra of large random trees.

Preprint.[9] Bohman, T. and Frieze, A. (2010). Karp–Sipser on random graphs with a fixed

degree sequence.

http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=2257129






[10] Bordenave, C. and Lelarge, M. (2010). Resolvent of large random graphs. RandomStructures and Algorithms 37 332–352.

[11] Bordenave, C., Lelarge, M. and Salez, J. (2010). Matchings on infinite graphs.Preprint.

[12] Costello, K. P. and Vu, V. H. (2008). The rank of random graphs. Random

Structures Algorithms 33 269–285. MR2446482[13] Costello, K. P., Tao, T. and Vu, V. (2006). Random symmetric matrices are

almost surely nonsingular. Duke Math. J. 135 395–413. MR2267289[14] Cvetkovic, D. M., Doob, M. and Sachs, H. (1995). Spectra of Graphs: Theory

and Applications, 3rd ed. Johann Ambrosius Barth, Heidelberg. MR1324340[15] Karp, R. and Sipser, M. (1981). Maximum matchings in sparse random graphs.

In Proc. of the Twenty-Second IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of

Computer Science 364–375. IEEE Computer Soc., Los Angeles, CA.[16] Khorunzhy, O., Shcherbina, M. and Vengerovsky, V. (2004). Eigenvalue dis-

tribution of large weighted random graphs. J. Math. Phys. 45 1648–1672.MR2043849

[17] Klein, A. (1998). Extended states in the Anderson model on the Bethe lattice. Adv.Math. 133 163–184. MR1492789

[18] Reed, M. and Simon, B. (1972). Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics. I. Func-

tional Analysis. Academic Press, New York. MR0493419[19] Zdeborova, L. and Mezard, M. (2006). The number of matchings in random

graphs. J. Stat. Mech. Theory Exp. 5 P05003, 24 pp. (electronic). MR2231662

C. Bordenave

CNRS UMR5219 and Institut

de Mathematiques de Toulouse

Universite Toulouse III

France

E-mail: [email protected]

M. Lelarge

J. Salez

Departement d’Informatique, Projet TREC

INRIA-Ecole Normale Superieure

France

E-mail: [email protected]@ens.fr








mailto:[email protected]



The rank of diluted random graphs - arXivRandom graphs, adjacency matrix, random matrices, local...

Documents

Transcript of The rank of diluted random graphs - arXivRandom graphs, adjacency matrix, random matrices, local...